Follow Us :

Case Law Details

Case Name : Manindra Mohan Mazumdar Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)
Appeal Number : I.T.A. No.: 649/Kol/2022
Date of Judgement/Order : 24/01/2023
Related Assessment Year : 2013-14

Manindra Mohan Mazumdar Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)

CIT(A) while dealing with the assessee’s appeal casually dealt with the issue and in the finding only mentioned about the two properties owned by the assessee and confirmed the addition made by ld. AO. However, ld. AO did not make any addition for Deemed Rental Income for the Bhuvneshwar property since it is used for commercial purposes. As regards the property at Ghaziabad it is stated by the assessee that the same is not habitable due to lack of electricity and water connection but this argument has neither been considered by ld. CIT(A) and nor rebutted by ld. Representative before us.

Under these given facts and circumstances of the case since the residential flat at Ghaziabad is not habitable, therefore, ld. AO was not justified in making addition for Deemed Rental Income in the hands of the assessee.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT KOLKATA

This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2013-14 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 15.09.2022 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3)/ 147 of the Act dated 27.12.2018.

2. When the case was called for, none appeared on behalf of the A perusal of the records shows that a number of opportunities have been given to the assessee but there is no compliance. It seems that the assessee is not interested to pursue the appeal and, therefore, we decide to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of ld. D/R and the available records.

3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds:

1. That Ld. Commissioner (APPEALS), NFAC, has erred in passing and dismissing the appeal without having any regard to Assessment order U/S 143/147, since Ld. A.O has added “Deemed Rental income” from “GHAZIABAD FLAT” of Rs. 72,000.00, but Ld. C.I.T(A) has treated it from BHUVNESHWAR, ODISHA which is being the business office of the appellant as per G.S.T Registration Certificate being furnished to Ld. A.O. Accordingly Ld. A.O has accepted and “Deemed Rental Income” is not added.

Hence order by Ld. C.I.T(A) is illegal and addition ought to be deleted.

2. That Ld. A. O. has erred in assessing “Deemed Rental Income” from “GHAZIABAD FLAT” without verification of the facts that the said flat is not livable due to lock of power and water connection, which is ought to be deleted.

3. That, the Copy of G.S.T Registration Certificate of business office at BHUVNESHWAR, FLAT is enclosed herewith, being also furnished to A.O in course of hearing.

AND;

4. That, the Appellant reserves the right of submission of further grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

4. From perusal of the grounds, we notice that the grievance of the assessee is against the finding of ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs. 72,000/- made by ld. AO towards Deemed Rental Income.

5. We have heard ld. D/R and perused the records placed before We notice that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of contractor. Regular return of income for AY 20 13-14 filed on 03.05.2018 declaring NIL income. The case re-opened by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act and assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) were carried out. The records suggest that re-opening proceedings were carried out for the reason of escapement of interest income on fixed deposits. However, perusal of the assessment records shows that no addition has been made towards undisclosed interest income and only addition towards notional rent income has been made. Therefore, even on this ground itself that no addition has been made for the reasons recorded for re-opening, the re-assessment proceedings deserves to be quashed.

6. Even on merits of the case, we notice that the assessee owns two immovable properties of which one is a commercial property situated at Bhuvneshwar, Odisha and the other is a residential property situated at Ghaziabad. Ld. AO did not make any addition for the rental income for Bhuvneshwar property but for Ghaziabad property Deemed Rental Income at Rs. 72,000/- has been made.

7. We also notice that ld. CIT(A) while dealing with the assessee’s appeal casually dealt with the issue and in the finding only mentioned about the two properties owned by the assessee and confirmed the addition made by ld. AO. However, ld. AO did not make any addition for Deemed Rental Income for the Bhuvneshwar property since it is used for commercial purposes. As regards the property at Ghaziabad it is stated by the assessee that the same is not habitable due to lack of electricity and water connection but this argument has neither been considered by ld. CIT(A) and nor rebutted by ld. Representative before us.

8. Under these given facts and circumstances of the case since the residential flat at Ghaziabad is not habitable, therefore, ld. AO was not justified in making addition for Deemed Rental Income in the hands of the assessee. We accordingly reverse the finding of ld. CIT(A) and delete the addition made by ld. AO at Rs. 72,000/-. Hence, all the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Kolkata, the 24th January, 2023

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Post by Date
April 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930